Print Story Just a few links...
Diary
By ObviousTroll (Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 01:44:38 PM EST) (all tags)
Nothing to say, except post a few things I found on the net today...

Gore calls for replacing Social Security, Medicare taxes with CO2 taxes

CAIR finally condemns Islamic Violence! - well, no, actually, they actually announced that civil rights complaints by Muslims are up, and that a "wave of anti-Islamic rhetoric" is sweeping talk radio.  I wonder how many nuns talk radio has murdered today?

Roger Waters tells concert goers to vote Democrat, but on the wrong day...

2MASS - they took the astrophotos that I couldn't.



I have nothing worthwhile saying except:

A DEMOCRAT IS PROPOSING TO ELIMINATE PAYROLL TAXES?!?

What's next, will Ronnie Reagan get out of his grave to endorse higher death taxes?

< NSFW | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >
Just a few links... | 26 comments (26 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
Al Gore by debacle (2.00 / 0) #1 Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 02:11:18 PM EST
Man, I have such a hardon right now.

IF YOU HAVE TWO FIRLES THOROWNF MONEY ART SUOCIDE GIRLS STRIPPER HPW CAN YPUS :OSE?!?!?!?(elcevisides).

Nice guy by theboz (2.00 / 0) #2 Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 02:29:59 PM EST
It's amazing that our media can selectively edit video to portray him as a wooden, humorless "robot" but in reality he's a pretty nice guy who has a similar sense of humor as me. Well, maybe not quite. I doubt he watches youtube videos of Japanese TV shows where people entering what they think are public restrooms are launched out into the ocean while defecating. Man, that's some great stuff, and doesn't contribute to global climate change or cause wars.
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n
[ Parent ]
Well, he might by DesiredUsername (2.00 / 0) #3 Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 02:35:22 PM EST
How many times have you starred on Futurama?

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]
Zoidberg was modeled after me by theboz (2.00 / 0) #4 Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 02:37:14 PM EST
Or not, actually. Either way, it's all good.
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n
[ Parent ]
Well, to be fair to the media by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #5 Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 03:46:08 PM EST
from what I've heard his political speeches were pretty wooden. I often heard people lament about the difference between the way he was with small groups and with big speeches.

Maybe he's finally learned?

--
Faith, and the possibility of weaponized kissing?

[ Parent ]
It could be true by theboz (2.00 / 0) #10 Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 06:51:56 PM EST
I didn't pay attention to politics back then, but now he seems to be all fired up. I think he may have just given up on trying to be what the consultants tell him is "electable" and just say what he really thinks.
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n
[ Parent ]
Bob Dole had the same problem by wiredog (4.00 / 1) #11 Tue Sep 19, 2006 at 02:11:42 AM EST
Terrible political speaker when running for office, very good after he retired and didn't get uptight about it.

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

[ Parent ]
Campaign by poll by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #18 Tue Sep 19, 2006 at 06:32:00 AM EST
If there's something that's killing this country, it's the capaign pollster.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
say what you like, but he's far less wooden now by lm (2.00 / 0) #6 Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 04:04:42 PM EST
Gore has considerably matured with regards to public addresses since 2000. Not only is he better at speech writing, but he's both far more relaxed and focused in delivering his speeches.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
youtube hasnt got much in the way of japanese by cam (2.00 / 0) #7 Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 04:50:29 PM EST
shows. I saw the one where the turned the toilet into a surfboard and a ski. Pretty funny, but I recall Clive James showing Japanese game show segments weekly in the 80s. So there must be a tonne of them around that havent made their way to youtube yet.

I recall one where they had a competition where the contestants were in a plastic tent and had to drink a beer every five minutes. The person who won was the one who could avoid urinating the longest. Classic.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic

[ Parent ]
Part of the problem by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #9 Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 06:21:22 PM EST
When he was running, he was, like all politicians, running on what polled well, not what he actually believed. It's easier to be passionate and project passion when you are talking about what you actually care about.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
There is the whole ``electability'' issue by lm (4.00 / 1) #16 Tue Sep 19, 2006 at 06:24:35 AM EST
I think the biggest problem with Gore in 2000 is that he wasn't angry enough to get in touch with his killer instinct. He played the 2000 election very gentlemanly instead of coming out of the corner swinging. The consequence is most voters (including me) based their voting decisions on the fact that on a rhetorical level Bush and Gore were saying pretty much the same thing.

Gore (and Kerry in 2004) really failed to highlight Bush's weaknesses and to take the battle to Bush's doorstep. It's a shame because there is so much good fodder. Gore's recently been waking up to this. In many of his recent speeches, the audience can feel the slow, controlled burn of his anger.

My guess is that a large part of it is stress levels. Being VP of the US doesn't allow a sane person enough time to relax and adequately prepare for giving campaign speeches and participating in nationally televised debates.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
since they have so many constitutional responsibil by garlic (2.00 / 0) #26 Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 06:24:20 AM EST
ties. nt


[ Parent ]
Not as strange as by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #8 Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 06:17:52 PM EST
A Republican presiding on the biggest expansion of government spending in history.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
Dubya is the Anti-Reagan Republican by wiredog (4.00 / 1) #12 Tue Sep 19, 2006 at 02:15:04 AM EST
The Federal Government is much larger than it was 6 years ago, and that's not counting the ever-expanding ranks of the contractors. These days, if you favor smaller, local government, you have to vote Democrat.

Weird. When I was a teenage socialist (sounds like a bad movie title, doesn't it?) I was a Democrat because they supported the things I did. Today I'm a middle-aged conservative, and I'm a Democrat because they support the things I do.

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

[ Parent ]
Much like his father. by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #13 Tue Sep 19, 2006 at 04:12:10 AM EST
IIRC, between the first Bush and Clinton, they had completely unwound the "Reagan Revolution" within the first year Clinton was in office.


--
Faith, and the possibility of weaponized kissing?
[ Parent ]
Except by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #15 Tue Sep 19, 2006 at 06:23:16 AM EST
Clinton actually shrank government slightly. (Though at the expence of programs Reagan would have liked rather than the sorts of cuts he would have made.)
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
Errr... What? by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #20 Tue Sep 19, 2006 at 09:13:37 AM EST
Could you provide a cite for that?

Certainly he slowed the growth of some programs, but that's different from gutting regulations and emasculating agencies...

--
Faith, and the possibility of weaponized kissing?

[ Parent ]
Not offhand by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #21 Tue Sep 19, 2006 at 09:48:40 AM EST
I'll try to dig it up if I have time...I suspect you could find it pretty easily just by looking up the budgets for the last fifteen years. Essentially, under Clinton number of people employed by the federal government fell by 10%.

Two things to remember: 1) Much of this was due to the military reductions following the Cold War. 2) This mostly happened during the Gingrich Republican led congress.

Clinton obviously tried to expand government quite a bit at the outset (depending on your definition of course) but after '94, he presided over a gradual reduction. (Not "gutting" or "emasculating" certainly, but definitely trimming.)

Of course, "gutting" and "emasculating" is not the same as "reducing". Bush Jr. emasculated FEMA without particularly reducing it.

Also remember that it was Clinton that presided over the welfare reform of the nineties, which was certainly a significant reduction in government, more so than anything accomplished in that regard by either his successor or his immediate predecessors.

Because in the past the Conservative base has had lots of deficit hawks, the Republicans still play the "tax-and-spend Democrat" card, but the honest truth is, that if you look at the numbers, the most successful cost-cutter in the last thirty years was Clinton. (Again, with the Gingrich Republican congress, which came to power demanding government reduction.)

My personal view is that the only way to get real government reduction is with a mixed government. That is, if the president is Republican (as now) the best way to reduce the government is to vote for a Democratic congress. When the same party owns both branches, you end up with rampant corruption and pork.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

[ Parent ]
Yeah, that was the best thing about clinton vs.. by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #24 Tue Sep 19, 2006 at 10:03:53 AM EST
congress. They fought each other tooth and nail, nothing got done and the rest of us got to get on with our booming economy.


--
Faith, and the possibility of weaponized kissing?
[ Parent ]
Here we go by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #22 Tue Sep 19, 2006 at 09:51:30 AM EST
From the Congressional Budget Office" particularly this chart.

Why the Democrats don't trumpet that, I have no idea.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

[ Parent ]
Ah. Gotcha. by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #23 Tue Sep 19, 2006 at 10:02:30 AM EST
Yeah, I think we were talking about different metrics that's a percentage of the economy and I was thinking in terms of regulation (IIRC, the metric I had seen in the early 90s literally measure the # of regulations enforced by various agencies; Reagan reduced that number by half, then Bush I and Clinton restored it all, plus some.

BUT In either case, I did not know that. Thanks for digging it up.


--
Faith, and the possibility of weaponized kissing?

[ Parent ]
I suspect by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #25 Tue Sep 19, 2006 at 11:11:52 AM EST
We've got different axes to grind...you're an anti-regulation guy while I'm a deficit hawk. Two different definitions of "small government".
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
I don't know he is the anti-Reagan by lm (2.00 / 0) #14 Tue Sep 19, 2006 at 04:14:33 AM EST
He's more like a one dimensional caricature of Reagan that takes all of Reagan's positions to an absurd extreme. Reagan, after all, did preside over a fairly large expansion of the government. While he cut some departments fairly severely, other departments grew substantially. Bush 43's rhetoric certainly has more in common with Reagan's than any other modern president.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Reagan by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #17 Tue Sep 19, 2006 at 06:30:32 AM EST
Reagan expanded the military tremendously, which was the reason he blew the deficit to shit. The argument, was, of course, that the USSR was such a threat that we had to.

What is bizarre about Bush is that on the one hand he spits out rhetoric about how we're facing the worst threat ever (as if even an Iran with a single nuke could possibly match the USSR, with 10,000 nukes mounted on ICBMS as a threat) and yet his budget increases are mostly outside the military budget.

Yeah, he matches Reagan's rhetoric, certainly, because the GOP knows that this rhetoric is a winning issue. But he doesn't even remotely act on it. I think that the Reaganites have started to figure this out, which is why they are bailing on him.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

[ Parent ]
Not just the military by lm (4.00 / 1) #19 Tue Sep 19, 2006 at 07:02:53 AM EST
The Reagan administration also expanded entitlements (social security, etcetera) and agreed to some increases in payroll taxes.

Your other points wrt Bush '43, I'm in agreement with. It's like he has a juvenile and incomplete version of Reagan's vision leading him to many actions that are at least superficially Reaganesque, but no actions that Reagan would have actually undertaken. A good example of this is Bush '43's first and second tax cut packages.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Just a few links... | 26 comments (26 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback